I've been reading Geisler's Christian Apologetics again. This is the 4th or 5th time. It's hard reading for someone such as me with my limited linguistic skills. Still, I've always been driven by an insatiable thirst for logic and have been pleasantly surprised by the contributions made by atheistic arguments for the correction of erroneous assertions made by ill informed Christians. I won't go into all of these points of contention for the sake of space, and of course, you always have the option of reading the arguments yourself. I would recommend reading material representing both sides.The sound of one hand clapping is no sound at all except the echoing of one's own bias, ingratiating ones own ego, or more to the point, a simple cowardly waste of time.
I've decided to go with two cosmological arguments against theism for an example of the atheistic defense of the non existence of God. The principle of causality to atheism or rather that causality leads to an infinite regress is a very common defense used by Bertrand Russell via his "Why I Am Not a Christian" expose. It goes something like this. If everything needs a cause, then so does God in which case he would not be God. If God does not need a cause, then neither does the world. If the world needs no cause then neither does God. Hence, whether every thing needs a cause or doesn't need a cause there is no God. If we push the principle of causality all the way and insist everything needs a cause, then we launch on an infinite regress and never reach a first cause or what theist's would call God.
The second example we can label "Causality leads to a self caused God" as Sartre presented in his work "Being and Nothingness." It goes something like this. Everything must have a cause in itself or out side of its self. If we arrive at a cause that no longer has need for any cause outside of itself [God],then this cause must have the cause for itself within itself. That is, that God must be a self caused being. But, a self caused being is impossible; for to cause oneself to exist, one would have to exist prior to his existing, which is impossible. Another way of stating this is, only what does not exist needs its existence to be caused. But to cause existence one must exist; nothing cannot cause something. Hence God as a self caused being cannot exist.
These two arguments are intriguing in their own way. Of course, Christian theology doesn't believe God needs a cause, or that He is self caused. The Bible tells us that God identifies Himself simply as "I Am." We believe God is un-caused, or to say it another way, that God is a necessary being. The question then becomes, "How is that defensible?" Geisler states that "Causality need not lead to an infinite regress." He believes that this is based on a misconception of the principality of the principal of causality. Or better, it is a confusion of the principle of sufficient existential causality and the principle of sufficient reason. The latter affirms that everything needs a cause. This would seem,as the atheists observe, leads to a contradiction of God being His own cause. But Aquinas, for example held that only finite, changing,dependent beings need a cause. This does not lead to a contradictory self-caused Being, but to a non contradictory un-caused Being. For if only finite beings need a cause, then when one arrives at a non finite [i.e. infinite] being it does not need a cause. Hence, from Aquinas' principle of causality the series would legitimately stop at a first, Uncaused Cause of all finite beings.
The principle of existential causality does not lead, as does the principle of sufficient reason, to a contradictory self-caused Being. Rather, since only finite, dependent beings need a cause it leads to an infinite and necessary Being that does not need a cause.
Geisler goes on further in his rebuttal but this is sufficient for the basis of my personal perspective. Critical thinking on both sides, while sometimes lacking in presentation, does indeed lead to self analytical correction. Self defeating statements are laid bare upon examination and exposed. One of my favorites is about truth. People let it spill out their mouths only to confirm their own lack of forethought, but revealing an extensive degree of proficiency in mimicry. It always goes something like this; "Truth is subjective and can't be known." Of course, what they are saying is they want you to accept this statement as true, that truth can't be known. When I was younger I repeated a lot of silly mantras I'd heard without an inkling of critical thought. I used to say you can't legislate morality. I'll let you think on that one for a while. If you can't figure that one out I've wasted my time.
I'm rabbit trailing again. My whole premise, once again, is not to bash the atheist. I believe they're wrong; but along the way they've played a great part through their challenges of theism in correcting my own misconceptions and perspectives. Geisler's book has stripped away many invalid arguments, but laid a solid foundation for an incredibly effective approach for giving an answer to anyone seeking for truth.
One final thought, in following the metaphysical arguments to the end, we find that for the Christian, God is pure actuality, or as the Bible says He is the great "I Am". We are contingent, or rather we are finite. We don't have to exist. We are confined to the realm of potentiality. We need a cause to exist. Hence the whole basis for examination of the infinite regress position. There is no potentiality in God. He is pure goodness without possibility of being other than that. He is pure Justice, Compassion, and Mercy. He can't be more or less than this. This is pure actuality. For the atheist, he arrives at nothing, absolute nothingness, and believes that from potentiality comes actuality.
At the end of the day none of this lead me to or from my belief in God. Jesus said to "Seek ye first the kingdom of God". I did. I asked and received. I'm almost embarrassed at some of the undeniable things God so graciously did to assure me of His reality. My consuming interest in pursuing theology isn't to just bolster my faith, or to give an answer. I'm still kind of a dork of sorts, and I still want to learn and at times even to be corrected. This is, of course, not nearly as extensive as it needs to be. Just trying to stir the pot a little. My pot has burn marks from not being stirred enough. (;<)
"In the beginning, [time] God created the heaven [space] and the earth [matter]. Genesis 1:1
Recommended reading for a more exhaustive examination of Methodology, Theistic apologetics, and Christian Apologetics: Christian Apologetics by Norman L. Geisler
No comments:
Post a Comment